Basically. In part, I wanted to show that his side of the issue does
have a point--if
applied in the proper context. He's right about the rule of law, I suppose--but the question is: is that really the issue at hand? In claiming that it is
, and using the examples he did...he's assuming something--something very vital.
Certainly, I doubt many people can disagree with the words
of his basic points...but there are certain premises that he's basing them on--premises that, to be honest, have taken part in defining various debates taking place today, just as much as they're defining the debate at the center of this tale.
at the second half of his closing statement, where he goes of on the subject of "values and principles"...and see if you can figure out what the problem is.